Ridgeland, South Carolina wants to deploy a speed camera to ticket out-of-state drivers as they pass through the seven-mile stretch of interstate within the tiny town’s limits. The plan angered the state legislature to such a degree that it unanimously enacted legislation in June to prohibit photo enforcement — except during declared state emergencies (view law). The Ridgeland town council refused to back down.
“As of yesterday, the iTraffic system is up and running,” Mayor Gary W. Hodges said last Tuesday. “We are going to make this community so that when people come through here on I-95… they know they’re going to be safe… Whatever we need to do as this evolves, we’re going to do it.”
The town council unanimously voted to use $16,000 in drug interdiction funds to purchase the used vehicle that the for-profit firm iTraffic will use to generate citations. Bill Danzell set up iTraffic in Ridgeland after his previous photo enforcement venture, Nestor Traffic Systems, went bankrupt. The new venture looks to target the estimated 1000 vehicles that pass through the town’s 70 MPH zone at 81 MPH or more — enough to generate $40 million.
“About the money,” Hodges said. “I want everyone to rest assured that the town handles the money from the citations. The town and the town alone handles the money. So please keep that in mind.”
The problem that Hodges faces is that, since 1996, state Attorney General Henry McMaster and his predecessors have made it clear that photo enforcement is illegal in South Carolina (view opinion). A specific law was enacted in June for the explicit purpose of prohibiting the mayor’s plan. State Senator Larry Grooms wrote to McMaster asking whether iTraffic and Ridgeland were violating the law by using certified mail to send speeding tickets to photographed drivers. The attorney general’s office responded on June 28 that under the new law, this is not allowed under any circumstances.
“Moreover, as specified in R. 312, ‘[a] person who receives a citation for violating traffic laws relating to speeding or disregarding traffic control devices based solely on photographic evidence must be served in person with notice of the violation within one hour of the occurrence of the violation,'” McMaster wrote (
view opinion, 61k PDF file). “There is no provision for use of certified mail in such circumstances.”
Hodges disregarded the ruling in the August 5 town meeting.
“There is the impression that a recent amendment to a state law banned this program,” Hodges said. “That particular law banned unmanned cameras. Our cameras are fully manned at all times and operated by a certified policeman. There’s no such thing as an unmanned camera. The state law basically said, ‘citations issued based solely on photographic evidence.’ In our case, the photographic evidence is the backup. The primary evidence is the officer’s observation. And that’s pretty well commonly accepted across the country.”
In a second letter issued July 9, the attorney general’s office shot down this argument as overly contrived.
“When interpreting the meaning of a statute, certain basic principles must be observed,” McMaster wrote. “The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. Typically, legislative intent is determined by applying the words used by the General Assembly in their usual and ordinary significance. Resort to subtle or forced construction for the purpose of limiting or expanding the operation of a statute should not be undertaken…. in the opinion of this office, photographic or video camera evidence may not be used in assisting an officer in observing and reviewing a traffic violation except in those limited circumstances set forth by R. 312.”
‘Limited circumstances’ refers to a declared statewide emergency. No such emergency exists. The emergency clause was included in the legislation to make the amendment germane to the underlying bill and serves no practical purpose. By requiring personal service at the time of the violation for any use of traffic cameras, the law fully prohibits automated ticketing machines.
Hodges set an August 15 open house for the public to view the new iTraffic system. A copy of the July 9 attorney general ruling is available in a 70k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: Ridgeland use of photographic evidence (Attorney General, State of South Carolina, 7/9/2010)
[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]
This is the “trickle down” effect of the insane tax regime that’s prevalent in much of the United States (we see a bit of this in Canada, too).
Because no level of government wants to deal with the revenue issue up-front, and because taxes have been cut on the upper percentiles for decades, and because there’s no money for transfer payments between levels, you get this kind of back-door cash-grabbing everywhere.
Set up sane federal income and sales tax systems, define a fair transfer payment system, and a lot of this nonsense (which I’ll call “curtain-twitcher socialism”) goes away.
Taxes not high enough. Bush’s fault. Right.
The federal tax code is insane in the USA and should be simplified, but I sure pay a lot less of them than I did in Canada. In fact I have a bunch of Canadian friends coming to NY to visit me this weekend – partly to stock up on cheap, much lower taxed booze.
I don’t think there’s necessarily a connection there. The town’s greedy and corrupt. The state needs to shut them down. Next…
I have to say that I do agree that the tax regime in the US is insane. Looks like some aren’t pulling their weight:
2010 US Federal Income Tax Brackets from fivecentnickel.com
Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly
10% Bracket $0 – $16,750
15% Bracket $16,750 – $68,000
25% Bracket $68,000 – $137,300
28% Bracket $137,300 – $209,250
33% Bracket $209,250 – $373,650
35% Bracket Over $373,650
Projected 2011 US Federal Income Tax Brackets
Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly
15% Bracket $0 – $70,040
28% Bracket $70,040 – $141,419
31% Bracket $141,419 – $215,528
36% Bracket $215,528 – $384,860
39.6% Bracket Over $384,860
Also, long term cap gains increase from 15% to 20% at the top and increase from 0% to 10% at the lowest bracket.
Where is the insanity?
The insanity is that the more productive you are in society, the more the government punishes you by taking away your earned labor.
Now everybody go strive for mediocrity!
Did I say anything about Bush? No, I didn’t. This has been coming since Kennedy.
It’s also too simplistic to say “taxes aren’t high enough”. Taxes in the US are not collected efficiently, nor scaled sanely.
The classic example is New York, but they’re not the only one: sales taxes are badly balkanized. There’s huge inefficiencies in the collection system that could be resolved through a flat VAT, preferably at the federal level and redistributed through transfer payments. Instead, the American fear of government has forced said governments to try and get revenue through quasi-legal back-door methods like this, as well as innumberable tolls, fees, levies and so forth.
I know it’s hard for people to admit to this (and there’s going to be disagreement on how much and why) but government does need money to pay for the services a modern society requires. If you gut that revenue, or worse, force the use of horribly expensive and dirty ways of collecting it, this is going to be the result: poor service, high “shadow” taxes and general disappointment.
The federal tax code is insane in the USA and should be simplified, but I sure pay a lot less of them than I did in Canada.
Yes, and on the other hand, no. You generally got better social services in Canada and you probably paid lower service fees (and hardly ever a road toll). You certainly don’t see incentivized municipal law enforcement in Canada to the same degree.
Americans pay more taxes than they think, and what they do pay is not collected in an efficient way.
The trick is to think about all the ways the government collects money from you. Most people only think about income and property taxes (because those are the ones that concern rich people who write about taxes and laws about taxes), and often only federally. Little thought is given to retail sales taxes, payroll taxes and user fees/levies/tolls. The problem comes in when government will not rely on income or sales taxes and instead is driven to revenues from what I’ll call “shadow taxes”. There’s very little opportunity for fraud and waste in retail sales tax and not a lot more in income tax; there’s infinite opportunity to abuse “shadow taxes”, but that’s what decades of not being up-front has forced.
“You generally got better social services in Canada and you probably paid lower service fees (and hardly ever a road toll).”
Typical Canadian ignorance of the US outside the Northeast, no offense. Even after recent expansion, only 28 states in the US have toll roads, and the toll roads in some states, like Virginia, are easily avoidable– arguably more so than Highway 407 in Ontario. There are plenty of places in the US where toll roads are unheard of, but Canadians tend to be more familiar with the US Northeast.
We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
Those tax tables don’t tell the full story. Add in 7.65% more tax in social security. And increase the effective tax rate by 100/92.35 because you pay tax on the SS tax. Bonus – this year it is running in the red. And it is a tax (especially if you are young) – get over it. Then add in the state income and local property taxes. Then add in sales taxes. Nobody gets away for free.
psarhjinian – no new taxes until they eliminate older ones and roll back the size, scope and grasp of government. If there were competitive political races where I live and vote, I’d ask the candidates which part of government they intend to lay off. I’d also ask which entitlements they intend to delay/defer/reduce. A good target, brought to us by Bush, is the drug rider he added for us geezers. Not planned for, not paid for, not right for the generations of younger workers. You could say the same about most government initiatives.
The numbers here don’t add up. $40 million to some little SC burg – 1000 vehicles? The googled population is 2500 souls. My expensive town is twice the size and has a total budget of less than half that. We pay for it ourselves and don’t use highway robbery as a funding tool.
Psar: “government does need money to pay for the services a modern society requires.”
Services required? Other than national defense, police, fire and the justice system, the government doesn’t provide a service that couldn’t be done more efficiently and for less money through the private sector.
““You generally got better social services in Canada and you probably paid lower service fees (and hardly ever a road toll).”
Some merit to what you say, although I didn’t use social services other than the medical care I found quite wanting from an access standpoint.
And the 407 Hwy around the GTA is far more expensive per mile than the NY Thruway.
The U.S. tax system does have its problems. I’d be more than happy if we switched to a system that lowered rates and closed loopholes – as we did in 1986, thanks to a bipartisan effort led by President Reagan and Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ).
The problem is that most critics of the tax system seem to think that we don’t pay enough, or that we don’t soak the rich enough. Neither of which is true.
There is also this underlying theme that we have to pay more to get better or more efficient services. While “you get what you pay for” is true to a certain point, we have LONG since passed that point when it comes to taxes. California taxes its residents more heavily than Texas taxes its residents, but most observers agree that the level of services provided by California is no longer appreciably superior than those provided by Texas. This was not true 20 years ago.
It’s like the UAW. While I would agree that auto workers deserve more than the minimum wage, I have a hard time seeing where the UAW adds any extra value to the vehicles it produces, compared to those coming out of transplant factories.
I may not be too familiar with how other states work.
But since when can a town enforce traffic laws on Interstate Highways? Isn’t that reserved for state police? I know thats how it is in CT, and pretty much every other state I know of.
What legal grounds can the town use to enforce such a law? People could simply not pay the ticket, and the town would have no legal recourse to recoup funds.
It depends on the state. When I lived in Pennsylvania, only state police were allowed to have radar in their cars, only state police were allowed to do enforcement on Interstate highways, and radar detectors were legal.
Moved to Virginia. Here, any local cop (read: county deputy sheriff, police departments are county or city-wide) is allowed to have a radar gun (they all do, and they’re expected to use them), local deputy sheriffs have enforcement rights on an Interstate highway along with the state police – as long as it’s within their county borders, and radar detectors are illegal.
Oh yeah, this year the state legislature actually tried to make radar detectors legal. It failed. Among those lobby against it were the county sheriff’s; one of who actually made a speed in the State House where he admitted the county couldn’t take the revenue hit if driver’s had radar detectors.
Finally, some honesty.
No big deal when local government thugs break the law. Right Gary?
If they go to the mats on this with the State, perhaps they’ll just eventually secede from South Carolina….there’s a precedent for that down there:-)
Hmm, a suspicious van parked on the shoulder o’ I-95? Passengers takin’ pictures of passin’ cars all hours of the day and night? Must be one o’ them there terrists! Arrest ’em and impound the van! [winks at South Carolina Attorney General]
Radar can easily be jammed. Very easily.
Now, just get a hold of any mid level EE geek, get him/her to build a battery operated xmtr (very, very simple, really) and then camo the eqpt comfortably beyond sight of the van. High power is not needed, only enough power to present a larger signal at the radar rcvr than would be there by the offending vehicle.
The town will have to pay far more for equipment to detect and DF the interference than it’ll get from the tickets.
Isn’t there an available “Freedom Tree” with an available sturdy branch as written about by some of the Founders?
A financially ignorant population got us to where we are. Most people can’t or won’t or don’t balance their checkbooks, so there is no reason to believe we would start minding the store now.
Go search Bell, CA and you’ll get a good idea of what an ignorant public allows. Higher taxes = more spending. There is no correlation between higher taxes and better government services or more efficient government services. Efficient gov’t service – hah! I just made a joke.
Will Rogers observed that when he made a joke, everyone laughed, but when Congress made a joke, it was the law. Efficient government, military intelligence, same kind of deal.
@ChuckR: What to do with 40 mil? Hmmm… Maybe it’s time to hire the former Bell, CA city manager for ideas…
Edit: Looks like jkross22 had the same basic thought.
Given the fact that the Legislature BANNED IT LAST MONTH!
I would plan on some fireworks as No Doubt someone, most likely the Attorney General STOPS THE TOWN in Court!
I do wonder if the town will ignore the court next???
Be Fun the watch the mayor brought out in handcuffs for disobeying a JUDGE!
As someone once said of photo enforcement (www.bancams.com Eyman I believe), Photo enforcement is a DRUG addiction for Cities. The vendors are the dealers!
Safety, just a EXCUSE! They know it too!
The mayor and his cohorts need to be taken out back and run over by a speeding car.
Can we please pass a federal law banning any sort of speed cameras and making any offense punishable by death.
So the municipality is knowingly flouting the law when it does this?
Sounds like it’s opening itself wide open to bigtime lawsuits for malicious prosecution. Hope it has deep pockets.
http://www.columbiacitypaper.com/2011/02/10/town-of-ridgeland-ignores-state-law-in-i95-photo-ticket-scam/ The people profiting from this scam are being exposed!